The Moderating Effect of Different Forms of Commitment on Role Ambiguity‐Job Tension Relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Whereas some authors have suggested that organizational commitment might have a buffering effect on stressor‐strain relations, others have suggested that commitment may exacerbate these relations. We examined the potential moderating effect of different forms of organizational commitment on relations between role ambiguity (a particular form of stressor) and job tension (an outcome of stress) in an organization that was undergoing significant change. We surveyed 225 individuals working for a public‐sector organization that was being partially privatized. Results supported the hypothesis that continuance commitment exacerbates relations between role ambiguity and job tension. Contrary to our hypothesis, affective commitment also exacerbated these relations. Résumé Alors que certains auteurs laissent entendre que l'engagement organisationnel aurait un effet tampon sur les relations entre les agents stressants et la tension (stressor‐strain relations), d'autres suggèrent que l'engagement peut exacerber ces rapports. Nous avons examiné l'effet modérateur que peuvent avoir différents types d'engagement organisationnel sur les relations entre l'ambiguïte du rôle (un genre particulier d'agent stressant) et la tension au travail (un résultat du stress) au sein d'un organisme subissant des changements profonds. Nous avons effectué un sondage auprès de 225 personnes travaillant au sein d'un organisme du secteur public qui était en voie d'être privatisé. Les résultats ont confirmé l'hypothèse suggérant que l'engagement de continuité (continuance commitment) exacerbe les relations entre l'ambiguïté du rôle et la tension au travail. Contrairement è notre hypothèse, l'engagement affectif (affective commitment) a également exacerbé ces relations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".